That isn't what anyone is saying, I was pointing out that enthusiasm for Athlon pre-dated the Athlon64 and hardly mention the P4. Perhaps we are misunderstanding your original assertion. Let's wind back a bit:
Sure, the P4 was bad (and yes I think it was a dead end), but is that the reason that the Athlon was highly thought of? Do you really have to link the two?
Well maybe for you, but personally I am a bit of an architecture nerd, have been since I got a book saying how the Zilog Z80 executed its instructions in the early 80's. I thought that the Athlon was good, that the P4 was misguided, and that is on their own merits. If the Athlon didn't exist, I would still have said the P4 was a mess. Similarly, if Intel had given up with the 486 and the Athlon stood alone, I would have been impressed. I can say that with confidence, having been impressed with chips like the SuperH which were never going to win high end benchmarks but just had some really nice design touches (apart from the use of a delayed branch slot but nothing is perfect).